Lawsuit: Pending ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025)

ColonelKai

ColonelKai

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2025
Messages
8
Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. Jurisdiction
As an exceptional, constitutional case, the original jurisdiction of this case lays within the Chancery as pursuant to the Court Rules & Procedures.

2. Parties
Applicants,
ColonelKai, as an intended Independent Candidate for the Alexandrian Parliament

Respondents,
The Crown,
The interim Parliament of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria

3. Facts
1. On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

4. Relief Sought
1. A quash order on the aforementioned bill, in full or in part, to extinguish the constitutional violations of the applicant.

5. Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form and the attached documents are true. I swear that any and all statements to the court are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.
SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.



Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERIM RELIEF
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The bill as listed in the initial complaint, coded "P.B.00-028", if passed, would cause an irrevocable inability of the applicant to run in the first ever democratic election of the Parliament. Under standards of Prima Facie, this would mean that the applicant would be denied his constitutional rights, and therefore would suffer damages. This would, of course, cause a great deal of negative consequences to the applicant, both in missed opportunities, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages.
2. As the first ever democratically elected term of a parliament is influential, and important, the effects of such violations under Prima Facie would be irreversible.
3. Therefore, the applicant hereby requests an Urgent Interim Relief be granted to halt the passing of the act, and any other further actions necessary surrounding the issue to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights of the applicant are not violated.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
 
YRKrp9o.png

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Crown's rightfully appointed Counsel is commanded to appear before the court within seventy-two hours.​
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

FACTUAL ANSWERS
1. AFFIRM On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. AFFIRM As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. DENY If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

DEFENSES
1. The Constitution already prohibits Independents from running for Parliament, as the Constitution specifies "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament" [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

It is clear through the definition of a Closed Party List Voting System that Independents cannot run, as Independents are not Parties.
[See: What’s the difference between open and closed list proportional representation? ; https://archive.fairvote.org/factshts/partylst.htm]

2. While the Constitution does provide the right "Every citizen has the right to participate in and run for office" [see Constitution, Part V, Section 22.1], the Constitution does not prevent regulations on how a citizen must run for office - and in this case the Emergency Electoral Act, as well as previous portions of the Constitution, impose a regulation that requires citizens be a member of a political party in order to run for office.

3. The Constitution, Part V, Section 22.6 is the freedom of political communication, press, and media. We don't see how this is relevant.

4. The Constitution, Part V, Section 22.9 is the freedom of association. We don't see how this is relevant.
 
Discovery shall now begin, and will last for seventy-two hours from this post. Parties may agree to end early or request an extension.
 
Both parties seem to agree on what happened and solely disagree on legal interpretation. The Crown consents to ending Discovery early.
 
The applicant concurs with the Crown. We consent to ending discovery early.
 
Discovery is abbreviated by consent.

The Claimant will now be granted seventy-two hours to provide their opening statement.

As an aside, the Claimant is assured that the Court has not forgotten of or lost their request for an injunction.
 
Date.11/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;


Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System
6. The constitution further states; "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament." This means, that the parliament should define a specific Electoral system, which should resemble a "closed party list voting system". The parliament agrees with such sentiment, in their act stating "[Alexandria]'s system of elections is outlined in the Constitution, but not expanded upon."

7. The Crown has argued in a recent lawsuit against them by the Sovereign Kingdom Party (Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 7 (Ch. 2025)) that the current version of the law, which allows for independents, should not be struck as the parliament has the freedom to decide what the electoral system is.

A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents
8. The Closed Party List Voting System (hereon referred to as CPLV) is a party-centric system, and therefore, the implementation of it by the Parliament should also be party-centric. The applicant does not deny that. However, it is not impossible for CPLV to allow independents. While some applications do restrict independents, a large number of applications of the system such as Germany, Spain, Poland, the European Union, Slovenia and Romania have provisions which allow for independents.

9. Such provisions can and do put additional restrictions on independents such as signature requirements to ensure a baseline level of stability and support to filter frivolous candidacies. The applicant explicitly does not object to such practices.

Exercising of a Right should not be Contingent on the Non-Exercising of Another
10. It would not be a reasonable limit to a right or freedom to create a legislation which requires a citizen to waive their right in one constitutional provision for them to be entitled to another. An example could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom from self incrimination to exercise their right to a free trial. Or, it could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom of association to exercise their right to run for office. Such restrictions would only be possible if they are inline with the concept of the "minimization of impacts on rights and freedoms."

Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms
11. The constitution states "Every player has freedom of association". Inline with paragraph 10 of this opening statement, a citizen should not be made to waive this right if they wish to exercise "the right to participate in and run for office". As being a member of a party and especially being a parliamentary candidate of the party is very much a matter of association, requiring citizens to become party members to exercise their right to participate in and run for office is a restriction of both rights.

12. The applicant concedes that the proposed act does not limit citizens from claiming they are an independent candidate even if they are not, and thus drops the allegations of violations of the freedom for political speech.

CONCLUSION
13. Therefore, as "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System" and "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized", it is within the Parliament's constitutional responsibilities to create an electoral system that resembles "Closed Party List Voting System" with least amount of restrictions on rights and freedoms. And, if "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", any and all electoral systems created by the Parliament under the current constitution must allow for independents to run.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

chablink.gif
 
ColonelKai said:
Date.11/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;


Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.

Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System
6. The constitution further states; "Members [of Parliament] will be elected according to a closed party list voting system defined by Parliament." This means, that the parliament should define a specific Electoral system, which should resemble a "closed party list voting system". The parliament agrees with such sentiment, in their act stating "[Alexandria]'s system of elections is outlined in the Constitution, but not expanded upon."

7. The Crown has argued in a recent lawsuit against them by the Sovereign Kingdom Party (Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 7 (Ch. 2025)) that the current version of the law, which allows for independents, should not be struck as the parliament has the freedom to decide what the electoral system is.

A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents
8. The Closed Party List Voting System (hereon referred to as CPLV) is a party-centric system, and therefore, the implementation of it by the Parliament should also be party-centric. The applicant does not deny that. However, it is not impossible for CPLV to allow independents. While some applications do restrict independents, a large number of applications of the system such as Germany, Spain, Poland, the European Union, Slovenia and Romania have provisions which allow for independents.

9. Such provisions can and do put additional restrictions on independents such as signature requirements to ensure a baseline level of stability and support to filter frivolous candidacies. The applicant explicitly does not object to such practices.

Exercising of a Right should not be Contingent on the Non-Exercising of Another
10. It would not be a reasonable limit to a right or freedom to create a legislation which requires a citizen to waive their right in one constitutional provision for them to be entitled to another. An example could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom from self incrimination to exercise their right to a free trial. Or, it could be a law forcing one to waive their freedom of association to exercise their right to run for office. Such restrictions would only be possible if they are inline with the concept of the "minimization of impacts on rights and freedoms."

Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms
11. The constitution states "Every player has freedom of association". Inline with paragraph 10 of this opening statement, a citizen should not be made to waive this right if they wish to exercise "the right to participate in and run for office". As being a member of a party and especially being a parliamentary candidate of the party is very much a matter of association, requiring citizens to become party members to exercise their right to participate in and run for office is a restriction of both rights.

12. The applicant concedes that the proposed act does not limit citizens from claiming they are an independent candidate even if they are not, and thus drops the allegations of violations of the freedom for political speech.

CONCLUSION
13. Therefore, as "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System" and "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized", it is within the Parliament's constitutional responsibilities to create an electoral system that resembles "Closed Party List Voting System" with least amount of restrictions on rights and freedoms. And, if "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", any and all electoral systems created by the Parliament under the current constitution must allow for independents to run.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.

chablink.gif
Click to expand...
It is assumed that this serves as the Claimant's opening statement.

The Crown shall have seventy-two hours to submit their opening statement.
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
This Opening Statement will show, in simple terms, the nature of Alexandria's electoral system under the Constitution, and explain thoroughly how the Plaintiff's claims hold no water.

ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Plaintiff asserted in their Opening Statement the following:
Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized
1. The constitution, as is familiar to all of us in this second lawsuit, states as following; "The following rights and freedoms are guaranteed as stated, subject only to (such reasonable limits prescribed by law) (that are justified in a free and democratic society.)" (Emphasis Added) This can be logically extended to the statement of "Limits on rights and freedoms must be (reasonable), and (prescribed by law) and (justified in a free and democratic society)".

2. If the parliament seeks to create a solution to a problem or need through legislation, and the solution involves limits on rights and freedoms, such limits must therefore be reasonable.

3. It would unreasonable, if a spectrum of possibilities existed to a problem where the right extreme would limit the rights and freedoms completely and left would not limit them at all, to go any further than to the right as necessary to have a solution would not be a reasonable limitation on rights and freedoms.

4. Therefore, it is within the parliament's duty, that when any legislation is created, the limit is as minimal as possible while still accomplishing the goal on which it set forward.

5. Such findings are supported by the constitution in which the specific statute of the constitution of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria was taken from; Canada. Oak's Test establishes that any legislation with limits must have a goal, must have a reasonable connection to that law, must limit the impact on the right to the reasonable minimum, and and the benefits must outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff asserts that legislation which places any limits on a right (such as the right to run for office) must have a goal, a reasonable connection to the law, limit the impact to a reasonable minimum, and the benefits must outweigh the negatives, however the Plaintiff has failed to mention that this is a good test for a laws which are not the Constitution itself, as the Constitution is inherently constitutional (per the definition of constitutionality).

The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

ON PARLIAMENT'S POWERS
Parliament is free to design an electoral system, however the Constitution requires it be a "closed party list voting system" not simply resembling one as the Plaintiff suggests [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

The Plaintiff suggests that it is not impossible to have a Closed Party List Voting System with Independents, but the Kingdom disagrees. Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems.

Thank you for your time.
 

YRKrp9o.png


IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO ENTREATY FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
​
ColonelKai said:
Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. Jurisdiction
As an exceptional, constitutional case, the original jurisdiction of this case lays within the Chancery as pursuant to the Court Rules & Procedures.

2. Parties
Applicants,
ColonelKai, as an intended Independent Candidate for the Alexandrian Parliament

Respondents,
The Crown,
The interim Parliament of the Sovereign Kingdom of Alexandria

3. Facts
1. On 7th of May, 2025, 02:49 UTC, the bill titled "Emergency Electoral Amendment", identified as P.B.00-028 was drafted on the Parliament Chamber by Real42.
2. As of 7th of May, 2025, 03:43 UTC, the bill has entered a motion to urgently consider.
3. If passed, the aforementioned bill would make it impossible for the applicant to continue their campaign as an independent candidate, and therefore would violate their constitutional rights under §5.22.1, §5.22.6 and §5.22.9 as it would force the applicant to run under a party.

4. Relief Sought
1. A quash order on the aforementioned bill, in full or in part, to extinguish the constitutional violations of the applicant.

5. Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form and the attached documents are true. I swear that any and all statements to the court are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.
SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.



Date.07/05/2025
Docket. FILING​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
REQUEST FOR URGENT INTERIM RELIEF
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;

1. The bill as listed in the initial complaint, coded "P.B.00-028", if passed, would cause an irrevocable inability of the applicant to run in the first ever democratic election of the Parliament. Under standards of Prima Facie, this would mean that the applicant would be denied his constitutional rights, and therefore would suffer damages. This would, of course, cause a great deal of negative consequences to the applicant, both in missed opportunities, loss of enjoyment, and emotional damages.
2. As the first ever democratically elected term of a parliament is influential, and important, the effects of such violations under Prima Facie would be irreversible.
3. Therefore, the applicant hereby requests an Urgent Interim Relief be granted to halt the passing of the act, and any other further actions necessary surrounding the issue to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights of the applicant are not violated.

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 7th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
Click to expand...
The Chancery at this time finds that granting the outstanding Entreaty for Emergency Relief would do more harm than it would have the potential to avoid, noting that the harm to the Claimant is likely an avoidable one, and is not one of a widespread nature that merits such an extreme action as an injunction. Doing as the Claimant asks would revert current legislation for the upcoming election back into a position which some — including the Government — view as unconstitutional. Finally, to grant this Writ for Emergency Relief would come dangerously close to us ruling on the merits for the Claimant, a position which we are extremely hesitant to take, even if we could later back out of that decision. With an abundance of caution, we decide to refuse this Writ. This shall not be construed as a ruling on the merits of this case, but merely on the merits of the Entreaty for Emergency Relief filed in conjunction with the Claimant's initial case filing.

Dartanboy said:
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OPENING STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
This Opening Statement will show, in simple terms, the nature of Alexandria's electoral system under the Constitution, and explain thoroughly how the Plaintiff's claims hold no water.

ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Plaintiff asserted in their Opening Statement the following:


The Plaintiff asserts that legislation which places any limits on a right (such as the right to run for office) must have a goal, a reasonable connection to the law, limit the impact to a reasonable minimum, and the benefits must outweigh the negatives, however the Plaintiff has failed to mention that this is a good test for a laws which are not the Constitution itself, as the Constitution is inherently constitutional (per the definition of constitutionality).

The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

ON PARLIAMENT'S POWERS
Parliament is free to design an electoral system, however the Constitution requires it be a "closed party list voting system" not simply resembling one as the Plaintiff suggests [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5].

The Plaintiff suggests that it is not impossible to have a Closed Party List Voting System with Independents, but the Kingdom disagrees. Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Claimant's and Crown's Opening Statements are acknowledged. With no witnesses called, the Claimant now has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statements.

So ordered.
 
Last edited:
Date.16/05/2025
Docket. 8 Ch.2025​

IN THE HONOURABLE CHANCERY
OF THE SOVEREIGN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA​

BETWEEN
ColonelKai​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Applicants​

v.
the Crown​
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Respondents​
The applicant hereby respectfully alleges that;


CLOSING STATEMENTS
1. Firstly, the Crown's Counsel seems to have misunderstood some of our points, and has treated Oak's test as if it were an argument made by us to be valid. For clarity, we do not claim oak's test is valid within Alexandria, as that is a matter for the court's to establish or not as they see fit. However, it seems that either way the Crown's Counsel does not object to our points on whether or not "Parliament is Free to Define Electoral System", "Restriction of Constitutional Right should be Minimized" and "Banning or Disallowing of Independents Restricts Rights and Freedoms", but has instead argued on the point of "A Closed Party List Voting System is not Impossible with Independents".

2. This can be seen from their argument: in the first section the Crown's Counsel claims "The Plaintiff fails to recognize that the Constitution itself disallows Independents from running as Independents, thus any law which specifies this further is simply re-iterating a pre-established Constitutional clause [see Constitution, Part I, Section 5.5]." with the specific statute they are referring to being the line in the constitution which states that the election system should be "closed party list voting system".

3. This is made concrete within their second section as they state "Some IRL countries may have systems which closely resemble CPLV, but by allowing Independents, which by definition are not parties, are thus not actually Closed Party List Voting Systems." (Emphasis maintained from original text).

4. Therefore, the Applicant takes it that the rest of the matters are either deemed inconsequential or accepted by the Crown.

Semantics on the Term of "Closed Party List Voting Systems"
1. Unfortunately, the conversation boils down to the semantics of CPLV and what it entails. The applicant admits that in the strictest, most literal meaning of the term, the system is intended solely for parties. However, the strictest and most literal definition is rarely the most useful in semantics.

2. Our language is riddled with thousands of examples of words which if examined on a purely etymological and technical level has strict definitions which wildly differ from their actual usage. Your champagne is likely not from Champagne, France. You likely don't use the word 'literally', literally. One could argue day and night on whether a hot dog is a sandwich.

3. The best way, short of having a definition of the term within the constitution itself, is to examine the commonly used, or pragmatically used meaning of the word. In fact, such interpretation is one of the hallmark pillars of the Common Law system.

4. Consequently, I implore the spectators of this case to look up "Closed Party List Voting" and navigate yourself to a list of nations which use the system. You will see that every nation I listed in my opening statements to demonstrate that the independents can be and are allowed within CPLV systems are marked on such a map. When it is such a widely agreed fact that this term applies to those systems which allow independents, how could it be argued that the "actual" meaning of the term excludes them?

The Applicant Rests their case, we thank the court and the opposing counsel for their time, and I apologise for any procedural headaches and errors I may have caused the court in this infancy of our legal system.
​

SIGNED. ColonelKai. Self-Representing.
This 11th of May, 2025.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE CHANCELLERY FOR REVIEW.
chablink.gif

​
 
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CLOSING STATEMENTS

Your honors, the question brought before the court in this case can be answered by one simple question:

Are Independents allowed in a Closed Party List Voting System?

The Plaintiff contends that because some foreign countries (not Alexandria) on the planet Earth have systems which resemble Closed Party List Voting, that Closed Party List Voting must not necessarily exclude Independents.

The Kingdom argues that a true Closed Party List Voting System must necessarily exclude Independents, lest it not be a Party system.

One cannot simply say that apples are oranges, nor that a non-party system is a party system. In the same way that adding a Senate or House of Review above Parliament goes against the very core of what it means to be a one-chamber Parliament, adding Independents to our elections goes against the very core of what it means to be a Closed Party List Voting system.

Allowing Independents side-steps the Constitution - the very core of our Sovereign Kingdom's identity - and it mustn't be permitted.

Additional Note
The Kingdom does not take a stance on whether Independents should be permitted to run, but argues they are not permitted to under the Constitution. If the Parliament believes Independents should be allowed to run, they must make it so through the proper channel, which is a Constitutional amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top